<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1983 (11) TMI 61 - KARNATAKA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28438</link>
    <description>For clubbing under section 64(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, the spouse&#039;s income must be taken as taxable net salary after the statutory deduction under section 16(1), because clubbing applies to actual income and not gross receipts. Denying the deduction merely because the income is included in the other spouse&#039;s hands would be inconsistent with the scheme of the Act. Only the net salary income was therefore liable to be clubbed, not the gross salary.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Nov 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Feb 2010 16:45:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=67435" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (11) TMI 61 - KARNATAKA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28438</link>
      <description>For clubbing under section 64(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, the spouse&#039;s income must be taken as taxable net salary after the statutory deduction under section 16(1), because clubbing applies to actual income and not gross receipts. Denying the deduction merely because the income is included in the other spouse&#039;s hands would be inconsistent with the scheme of the Act. Only the net salary income was therefore liable to be clubbed, not the gross salary.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Nov 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28438</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>